FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT DECEMBER 12, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13164 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 8 0 1 3 8 - C R - DT KH U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A N D R E W W E I S S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 12, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: O n J u ly 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , aS o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f F lo r id ag r a n d ju ry r e tu rn e d a m u lti-2

c ounti ndi c tm e nta ga i ns tA ndr e w W e i s s , the appe l l a nt , a nd M a r c W e l l s . I n C ount 1 , W ei ss, a p h ysi ci an , an d W el l s w ere ch arg ed w i th a 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 6 co n sp i racy t o di s pe ns e O xy c odone out s i de the s c ope of pr of e s s i ona l m e di c a l pr a c t i c e a nd not fo r a l eg i t i m at e m ed i cal p u rp o se i n v i o l at i o n o f 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1 ). C o u n t s 2 th ro u g h 2 7 ch arg ed W ei ss, an d C o u n t s 2 8 th ro u g h 4 1 ch arg ed W ei ss an d W el l s, w i th s ubs t a nt i ve of

f e ns e s of i l l e ga l l y di s tr i but i ng O xy c odone by w r i t i ng pres cr i pt i on s f

or the drug thatw er e out si de the course of profes si on al m edi ca l p r a c tic e a n d n o t f

o ra le g itim a te m e d ic a l p u rp o s e in v io la tio n o f § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) . C ou nt52 char ged W ei ss w i th o bstruct i ng and i m pedi ng the grand j ury i nve s t i ga t i on i nt o hi s unl a w f ul di s tr i but i ng of

O xy c odone by c r e a t i ng a nd turni ng o v e rf a ls e m e d ic a l r e c o r d s to la w e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e r s in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 1 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . O n F e b ru a ry 1 7 , 2 0 0 0 , p u r s u a n t to a p le aa g r e e m e n t w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t, W ei ss p l ed g u i l ty t o C o u n t s 2 , 9 , 2 2 an d 3 9 . A s p arto f th e ag reem en t , W ei ss w ai ved h i s r i gh tt o app ea l hi s s ent ence s unl es s the se nt ence s e xcee ded the st atut ory m a xi m um pe na l ty orw e r e the r e s ul tof the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s upw a r d de pa r tur e f r om the s e nt e nc e r a nge pr e s c r i be d by the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s . O n M a y 22, 2006, the d i s tr i c tc o u r ts e n t e n c e d W e i s s w i th i n th e s e n t e n c e r a n g e t o c o n c u rr e n tp r i s o n t e rmsThe sentence rang e (for each of the four offense s) deter mined by using a total offenselevel 1 of 33 and a

criminal history

cate g ory of I was 135 to 168 months’ imprisonment. 3 o f 1 5 0 m o n th s a n d th r e e y e a rte rm s o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . W e is s n o w ap p e a ls h is 1 s e n te n c e s , c o n te n d in g th a t th e s e n te n c e w a iv e rc o n ta in e d in th e p le aa g r e e m e n t doe s notba rhi m f

r om appe a l i ng hi s s e nt e nc e s on the gr ound tha tthe G ove rnm e nt b r e a c h e d th e p le aa g r e e m e n t. I n a d d itio n , W e is s c la im s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, in d et erm i n i n g th e G u i d el i n es sen t en ce ran g e, arri v ed atan i n co rrectb ase o ffen se l e ve l a nd appl i e d the i nc orr e c ts t a nda r d t o hi s r e que s tf ora s a f e ty - va l ve r e duc t i on, un der U . S . S . G . §§ 5C 1. 2 and 2D 1. 1(b)(6) (2002 ). W e is s c o n te n d s th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t b r e a c h e d th e p le aa g r e e m e n t in th is w a y : d u r in g p le an e g o tia tio n s , it le d h im to b e lie v e th a t h e w o u ld b e h e ld ac co u n tab le fo r a sp ec ific n u m b ero f O x yc o d o n e p il ls, b u t i n fo rm ed th e c o u rt’s prob at i on se rvi ce thathi s off ense s i nv ol ved add i t i on al pi l l s. “ P l eabargai ns . . . ar e l i ke contra ct s a nd shou l d b e i nt erpret ed i n acc ord w i th w hatthe part i es i nt ended. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. R ub bo , 39 6 F . 3d 13 30 , 13 34 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). T here fore , w hether the gove rnm e ntha s vi ol a t e d apl e aa gr e e m e nt“ i s j udge d a c c or di ng t o the defe nd ant ’ s r ea sonabl e und er st andi ng atthe t i m e he e nt er ed hi s pl ea . ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. T a y l or , 77 F . 3d 368, 370 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . I n f i ndi ng w ha tthe de f

e nda ntr e a s onabl y unde r s t ood, w e l ook t o the a gr e e m e nti t s e l f . I f the a g r e e m e n t is a m b ig u o u s , w e c o n s id e re x tr in s ic e v id e n c e o f th e p a r tie s ’ in te n t.4

U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ope l a nd, 381 F . 3d 1101, 1106 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . I f the a gr e e m e nt i s nota m bi guous , w e f

i nd the de f

e nda nt ’ s unde r s t a ndi ng f r om the f ourc orne r s of th e d o c u m e n t. I d . N othi ng i n the pl eaagre em enti n thi s c as e i nd i ca t es thatthe G ov ernm entw as r e s tr ic te d f

r o m in f o rm in g th e c o u r t v iaits p r o b a tio n s e rv ic e o f th e n u m b e ro f

p ills f orw hi c h W e i s s s houl d be he l d a c c ount abl e . A l though a n i ni t i a l dr a f tof the agre em entdi d st at e the spec i fi c num ber of pi l l s i nv ol ved i n the offens es , thatdraf t w as no texec ut ed. T he draftthatbeca m e the pl eaagre em entre m ov ed that s t a t e me n t–w i th W e i s s ’ s ap p r o v a l , o f c o u r s e . Th a td r a f

ts t a t e d th a tth e U . S. A tto rn e y r e s e rv e d th e r ig h t to “in f o rm th e c o u r t a n d th e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e o f a ll f a c ts pe r t i ne ntt o the s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e s s , i nc l udi ng a l l r e l e va nti nf orm a t i on c onc e rni ng the of f e ns e s c om m i tt e d . . . . ” I n s um , the pl e aa gr e e m e nti s nota m bi guous , a nd w e d o n o t c o n s id e rw h a t th e G o v e rn m e n t r e p r e s e n te d to W e is s in th e in itia l d r a f t. H i s arg u m en tth atth e G o v ern m en tb reach ed th e ag reem en tfai l s. W e e nforce ase nt ence appeal w ai ver, such as the w ai ver i n thi s c as e, w here the de f e nda nta gr e e d t o the w a i ve rknow i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y . A know i ng a nd vo l un t ary w ai ver i s s ho w n w here the “ (1) the di stri ctcourtspec i fi ca l l y quest i on ed the de f e nda ntc onc e rni ng the s e nt e nc e appe a l w a i ve rdur i ng the F e de r a l R ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 11 col l oq uy, or (2) i ti s m ani fe st l y c l ea r f rom the re cord that5

the defendantotherw i se un ders t oo d the ful l si gn i fi ca nce of the w ai ver. ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . B u s h e r t, 9 9 7 F .2 d 1 3 4 3 , 1 3 5 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) . “A w a iv e ro f th e r ig h t to appeal i ncl ud es a w ai ver of the ri gh tt o app ea l di ff i cul tor debat abl e l egal i ss ues- i nd ee d, i ti ncl ud es a w ai ver of the ri gh tt o app ea l bl at anterror. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. H ow l e, 16 6 F . 3d 11 66 , 11 69 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). W e e nforce W ei ss ’ s w ai ver because the di stri ctcourtspec i fi ca l l y quest i on ed W e is s c o n c e rn in g th e w a iv e r , a n d f o u n d th a t h e u n d e r s to o d it, b e f o r e a c c e p tin g h is g u ilty p le a s . S e e B u s h e r t, 9 9 7 F .2 d a t 1 3 5 1 . F or the foregoi ng re as on s, W ei ss ’ s s ent ence s a re AF F I RME D.